Sponsorship Identification Requirements for Foreign Government-Provided Programming, 57775-57793 [2024-15259]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 136 (Tuesday, July 16, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57775-57793]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-15259]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MB Docket No. 20-299; FCC 24-61; FR ID 228169]


Sponsorship Identification Requirements for Foreign Government-
Provided Programming

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission 
(Commission) takes steps to ensure clear and reasonable foreign 
sponsorship identification rules, which require radio and television 
broadcast stations to inform audiences when programming aired pursuant 
to a lease of airtime on the station is sponsored by a foreign 
governmental entity. The document replaces a previous requirement of 
the rules with a new approach that provides licensees with two options 
for demonstrating that they have sought to obtain the information 
needed to determine whether the programming being provided by a lessee 
is sponsored

[[Page 57776]]

by a foreign governmental entity. The revised approach addresses 
concerns broadcasters had regarding the burdens and complexity of the 
rule and clarifies when the rule applies.

DATES: Amendatory instruction 2 (47 CFR 73.1212(j)(8) and (k)) is 
effective August 15, 2024, and amendatory instruction 3 (47 CFR 
73.1212(j)(3)) is delayed indefinitely. The Commission will publish a 
document in the Federal Register announcing the effective date.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information on this 
proceeding, please contact Radhika Karmarkar of the Media Bureau, 
Industry Analysis Division, [email protected], (202) 418-1523.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Second 
Report and Order (Second R&O), FCC 24-61, in MB Docket No. 20-299, 
adopted on May 31, 2024, and released on June 10, 2024. The complete 
text of this document is available electronically via the search 
function on the FCC's website at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-24-61A1.pdf.

Synopsis

I. Introduction

    1. The Second R&O took steps to ensure clear and reasonable foreign 
sponsorship identification rules. In April 2021, the Commission issued 
a Report and Order (First R&O) (86 FR 32221, June 17, 2021) in the 
above-captioned proceeding adopting a requirement that radio and 
television stations broadcast clear disclosures for programming that is 
provided by a foreign governmental entity and set forth the procedures 
for exercising reasonable diligence to determine whether such a 
disclosure is needed. The Commission took this action in response to 
reports that U.S. broadcast stations were transmitting undisclosed 
foreign governmental programming, against the backdrop of over ninety 
years of sponsorship identification regulations that ensure the public 
is informed when airtime has been purchased on broadcast stations in an 
effort to persuade audiences.
    2. In the Second R&O, the Commission addressed a ruling by the U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, National 
Association of Broadcasters, et al., v. FCC, 39 F.4th 817, 820 (D.C. 
Cir. 2022) (NAB v. FCC), that vacated one of the foreign sponsorship 
identification requirements established in the First R&O. The 
Commission replaced the vacated verification requirement with an 
approach that avoids the investigatory obligation on the part of 
licensees that was at issue in NAB v. FCC. The new approach provides 
licensees with two options for demonstrating that they have met their 
duty of inquiry in seeking to obtain the information needed to 
determine whether the programming being provided by a lessee is 
sponsored by a foreign governmental entity. The adopted approach 
addresses concerns about burdens and complexity raised by commenters in 
response to the second notice of proposed rulemaking (Second NPRM) (87 
FR 68960, November 17, 2022) in the above-captioned proceeding.
    3. Furthermore, in this order, the Commission clarified that its 
foreign sponsorship identification rules do not apply to sales of 
advertising for commercial goods and services to the extent such 
programming falls within the exemption contained in 47 CFR 73.1212(f) 
of its general sponsorship identification rules. In addition, the 
Commission found that its foreign sponsorship identification rules will 
not apply to political candidate advertisements, but will apply to 
issue advertisements and paid public service announcements (``paid 
PSAs''). It also confirmed that the rule changes do not alter its 
finding in the First R&O that noncommercial and educational broadcast 
stations (NCEs) are not likely to fall within the ambit of the foreign 
sponsorship identification rules. The Commission declined to create an 
exemption from the rules for religious programming and locally produced 
and/or distributed programming. It also concluded that, when a lessee 
and licensee enter into recurring leases for the same programming, the 
licensee will be required to exercise its reasonable diligence 
obligations under the rule only once per year with respect to that 
particular lessee and that particular programming. With respect to the 
adopted rule changes, the Commission grandfathered lease agreements 
already in effect at the time of the required compliance date for these 
newly-adopted modifications, determining that such leases will need to 
come into compliance either at the time of renewal or when the parties 
to the agreement enter into a new lease. Finally, the Commission 
clarified the obligations of section 325(c) permittees under the 
foreign sponsorship identification rules.

II. Background

    4. Section 317 of the Communications Act and the Commission's 
implementing regulations under 47 CFR 73.1212 have long required 
broadcast licensees to inform their audiences when programming is being 
aired in exchange for payment or compensation to the station. While 
section 310(a) of the Act prohibits foreign governments and their 
representatives from holding a broadcast license, there is no 
limitation on their ability to enter into a contract with the licensee 
of a station to air programming of their choosing, or even to lease the 
entire capacity of a radio or television station. In the First R&O, the 
Commission amended the then existing sponsorship identification rules 
by adding a requirement that licensees disclose the identity of any 
foreign governmental entities that lease time on their stations. The 
disclosure requirements apply to leased programming because the record 
in the underlying proceeding identified leased airtime as the primary 
means by which foreign governmental entities are accessing U.S. 
airwaves to persuade the American public without adequately disclosing 
the true sponsor.
    5. The First R&O defined ``foreign governmental entity'' using 
existing definitions, statutes, and regulations. Pursuant to 47 CFR 
73.1212(j)(2), the term ``foreign governmental entity'' ``shall include 
governments of foreign countries, foreign political parties, agents of 
foreign principals, and United States-based foreign media outlets.'' 
Section 73.1212(j)(2)(i) through (iv) of the Commission's rules set out 
definitions for ``government of a foreign country'', ``foreign 
political party'', ``agent of a foreign principal'', and ``United 
States-based foreign media outlet''.
    6. The foreign sponsorship identification rules apply in two 
circumstances. First, a prescribed disclosure is required when a 
foreign governmental entity has sponsored, paid for, or furnished 
programming that is aired on a radio or television station pursuant to 
a lease agreement. Section 73.1212(j)(1)(i) requires that foreign 
government-provided programming furnished consistent with Sec.  
73.1212(a) include the following disclosure: ``The [following/
preceding] programming was [sponsored, paid for, or furnished], either 
in whole or in part, by [name of foreign governmental entity] on behalf 
of [name of foreign country].'' Second, if a foreign governmental 
entity provides the programming for free, or for nominal compensation, 
as an inducement to air the programming, the prescribed disclosure is 
required if the programming is political or involves discussion of a 
controversial issue.
    7. The foreign sponsorship identification rules neither prevent nor 
restrict the broadcast of foreign government-provided programming, but 
rather, are intended solely to inform

[[Page 57777]]

audiences about the source of any such programming so that they may be 
more informed and savvy consumers of the material. As the Commission 
stated in the First R&O, ``[t]he principle that the public has a right 
to know the identity of those that solicit their support is a 
fundamental and long-standing tenet of broadcasting.''
    8. Section 317(c) of the Act requires licensees to exercise 
``reasonable diligence to obtain,'' from their employees and persons 
with whom they deal directly, information to enable the licensees to 
make the required sponsorship identification announcement. To satisfy 
this reasonable diligence standard with regard to foreign sponsorship 
identification, the current rules under 47 CFR 73.1212(j)(3) require a 
licensee to take each of the following actions, both when entering into 
a new lease agreement and renewing a lease agreement:

    (1) Inform the lessee of the foreign sponsorship disclosure 
requirement.
    (2) Ask the lessee whether it falls into any of the categories 
that would qualify it as a ``foreign governmental entity.''
    (3) Ask the lessee whether it knows if any individual/entity 
further back in the chain of producing/distributing the programming 
to be aired qualifies as a foreign governmental entity and has 
provided some type of inducement to air the programming.
    (4) Memorialize the above-listed inquiries and retain such 
memorialization in its records for the remainder of the license term 
or for one year, whichever is longer.

These requirements apply regardless of whether the programming is 
provided pursuant to a lease agreement for consideration under section 
317(a)(1) or is provided for free or for nominal compensation under 
section 317(a)(2) and contains political programming or programming 
involving a controversial issue. The rules also apply to any 
programming broadcast pursuant to a section 325(c) permit. The 
Commission initially adopted an additional requirement that, as 
discussed in further detail below, has been vacated by the U.S. Court 
of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. NAB v. FCC, 39 F.4th 
at 820.

    9. While the reasonable diligence requirements of section 317(c) 
apply to licensees, section 507 of the Act imposes an obligation on 
those involved in the production and/or distribution of program matter 
for broadcast to communicate any information known to them about any 
money, service or other valuable consideration that any person has paid 
or agreed to pay for the inclusion of any matter as part of a program. 
The disclosure obligation extends beyond the lessee itself to any 
person connected with the production, preparation, or supply of the 
programming.
    10. On July 19, 2021, the ABC Television Affiliates Association, 
CBS Television Network Affiliates Association, FBC Television 
Affiliates Association, and NBC Television Affiliates (collectively, 
the Affiliates) filed a Petition for Clarification. The Affiliates 
assert that the exemption in the First R&O of ``traditional, short-form 
advertising'' from the foreign sponsorship identification rules creates 
confusion because the term has no established meaning in the broadcast 
industry. In their petition, the Affiliates argue that the Commission 
should clarify that the foreign sponsorship identification rules do not 
apply when a licensee sells time to advertisers in the normal course of 
business, regardless of the advertisement's length.
    11. On August 13, 2021, the National Association of Broadcasters 
(NAB), the Multicultural Media, Telecom and internet Council (MMTC), 
and the National Association of Black Owned Broadcasters (NABOB) 
(collectively, Petitioners) filed a Petition for Review of the First 
R&O with the D.C. Circuit. Petitioners challenged the Commission's 
authority to impose one of the reasonable diligence requirements 
contained in the First R&O. Specifically, in addition to the four 
reasonable diligence requirements listed above, the First R&O had 
required licensees to confirm the lessee's status, at the time of 
entering into a lease agreement and at renewal, by consulting the 
Department of Justice's Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) website 
and the Commission's semi-annual U.S.-based foreign media outlets 
reports. On July 12, 2022, the D.C. Circuit vacated this verification 
requirement, holding that it exceeded the Commission's authority under 
section 317(c). NAB v. FCC, 39 F.4th at 820. The D.C. Circuit stated 
that section 317(c) imposes on licensees only a duty of inquiry and not 
a duty of investigation. The court left in place the remaining four 
requirements needed to satisfy the statutory reasonable diligence 
standard.
    12. On October 6, 2022, the Commission released the Second NPRM 
containing proposals to address the gap left by the D.C. Circuit's 
vacatur of the verification requirement contained in the foreign 
sponsorship identification rules. The Second NPRM proposed two 
alternatives to replace the vacated requirement that licensees 
independently confirm the lessee's status. Under the first proposal, 
each licensee had to certify that it had informed its lessee of the 
foreign sponsorship identification rules and obtained, or sought to 
obtain, a certification from its lessee stating whether the lessee is 
or is not a ``foreign governmental entity.'' In turn, the lessee would 
submit a certification in response to the licensee's request. To 
minimize compliance burdens, the Commission proposed that licensees and 
lessees use standardized certification language, as set forth in the 
Second NPRM. Consistent with the existing requirement that licensees 
upload into their online public inspection files (OPIFs) their lease 
agreements, the Commission tentatively concluded that licensees should 
upload both their own and their lessees' completed certifications into 
their OPIFs, along with the associated lease agreements.
    13. The Second NPRM also contained a second proposal based on an 
approach raised during oral argument in NAB v. FCC as a possible 
alternative to the rule provision it ultimately vacated. Under this 
proposal, in lieu of the licensee independently confirming the lessee's 
status by checking the Department of Justice's FARA website, or the 
Commission's U.S.-based foreign media outlet reports site, the licensee 
would ask the lessee to provide screenshots showing the results of the 
lessee's search for its name on these sites. In addition, the Second 
NPRM also sought comment on the need to apply the proposals contained 
therein to section 325(c) permit holders. Finally, it provided another 
opportunity for comment on the Affiliates' Petition for Clarification 
regarding the treatment of advertisements.

III. Discussion

    14. The Commission first determined that licensees must pursue one 
of two approaches to address the gap left by the D.C. Circuit's vacatur 
of the independent verification requirement. It then addressed 
questions raised in the record about the application of the foreign 
sponsorship identification rules to different types of broadcast 
programming. It then explained when licensees must comply with the 
newly-adopted requirements and grandfathers lease agreements already in 
existence at the time of the compliance date of the new rules for the 
duration of the lease term, determining that existing leases will have 
to comply with the new rules at the time of renewal or when the parties 
enter into a new agreement, whichever is earlier. It clarified that its 
foreign sponsorship identification rules will not apply to sales of 
advertising for commercial goods and services to the extent that such 
programming would

[[Page 57778]]

not otherwise be subject to the general sponsorship disclosure rules, 
as set forth in 47 CFR 73.1212(f). The Commission also found that the 
foreign sponsorship identification rules will not apply to political 
candidate advertisements. It did, however, determine that the foreign 
sponsorship identification rules will apply to issue advertisements and 
paid PSAs. It found that it is inconsistent with its goal of disclosing 
the source of foreign government-provided programming, and in some 
instances the First Amendment, to exclude from the ambit of its rules 
locally produced and/or locally distributed programming and religious 
programming. It also described how the requirements laid out in the 
Second R&O will apply to section 325(c) permit holders. Lastly, it 
found that its actions will not inhibit diverse entrants from 
participating in the broadcast media marketplace.

A. Obtaining Information From Lessees

    15. The Second R&O gives broadcast licensees greater flexibility 
than proposed in the Second NPRM with respect to how they must seek to 
obtain from lessees the information needed to determine whether a 
foreign sponsorship disclosure is needed. Specifically, a licensee may 
choose between one of two options to comply with the rule. Neither of 
these two options imposes an investigatory duty upon licensees or holds 
them responsible for the truth of the information they obtain. Under 
the first option, both the licensee and the lessee must complete a 
written certification either using the standardized certification 
language contained in Appendices C and D of the Second R&O, and set 
forth below, or using their own language, as long as the certifications 
written in their own language contain the inquiries set out in 47 CFR 
73.1212(j)(3), pursuant to the First R&O. Under the second option, the 
licensee must ask the lessee to provide screenshots showing the search 
results generated by the lessee's search for its own name on two 
Federal Government websites.
    16. In all other respects, under this second option, the licensee 
must follow the other requirements contained in the existing foreign 
sponsorship identification rules. Consistent with the existing foreign 
sponsorship identification rules, the licensee must inform the lessee 
about the foreign sponsorship disclosure requirement, inquire whether 
the lessee is either a ``government of a foreign country'' or a 
``foreign political party,'' and inquire about the lessee's knowledge 
of anyone further back in the chain of producing/distributing the 
programming who qualifies as a ``foreign governmental entity'' and may 
have provided an inducement to air the programming such as to trigger 
the need for a foreign sponsorship disclosure. See 47 CFR 73.1212(j)(i) 
through (iii). Finally, also consistent with the existing foreign 
sponsorship identification rules, the licensee must memorialize those 
inquiries in some manner. Note, however, that the existing 
``memorialization'' requirement has been moved from Sec.  
73.1212(j)(3)(v) of the Commission's rules to revised Sec.  
73.1212(j)(3)(iv), which replaces the vacated Sec.  73.1212(j)(3)(iv).
    17. Given the concerns raised in the record about the burdens 
associated with the proposals in the Second NPRM to replace the 
independent verification requirement, the requirements adopted in the 
Second R&O offer licensees more flexibility by giving them a choice of 
approaches and by allowing them to devise their own certification 
language. Moreover, the Commission reduced compliance burdens and made 
the new requirements easier to implement by offering simple 
certification templates. It also allowed a licensee to inquire about a 
lessee's foreign governmental entity status only once a year when the 
lessee and programming are the same (e.g., weekly broadcasts of church 
services from the same church), assuming there is no change in the 
lessee's status and the lessee has not become aware of any change in 
the individuals/entities further back in the programming's production/
distribution chain that would trigger the need for a foreign 
sponsorship disclosure.
    18. The Commission declined to adopt several proposals contained in 
the Second NPRM in order to address concerns raised in the record about 
compliance costs and burdens. First, a licensee need not notify the 
Media Bureau when a lessee fails to respond to the licensee's queries. 
Second, licensees will not be required to retain certifications and 
screenshots in the licensees' OPIFs that are hosted by the Commission. 
Licensees may either file these records in their OPIFs or in their 
internal files. Finally, if a lessee fails to respond, or fails to 
respond adequately, to the licensee's request for a certification or 
screenshots, the licensee is not prohibited from airing the program. 
Nevertheless, if a question arises later about whether a disclosure was 
needed, the licensee must be able to demonstrate, in the event of a 
fact-specific inquiry by the Commission, that it exercised reasonable 
diligence in seeking the information. As explained below, the newly-
adopted requirements are within the Commission's statutory authority 
and are consistent with the D.C. Circuit's ruling in NAB v. FCC.
1. Licensees Must Comply With One of Two Approaches
    19. Licensees will be required to comply with either one of the two 
approaches described below. Although licensees must choose one of these 
approaches, they need not choose the same approach for each lease or 
renewal agreement, even when the same lessee is involved. Compliance 
with one of these two approaches must be at the time of entering into 
any new lease agreement or renewing an existing lease agreement, unless 
the once-a-year exception described below applies. The Commission 
rejected a suggestion to require certifications of compliance with the 
foreign sponsorship identification rules only at the time of a 
licensee's renewal application.
    20. Certification Option. One option available to licensees is the 
use of certifications, as described below. The Commission found that 
the certification option fills the gap left by the D.C. Circuit's 
vacatur of a licensee's requirement to conduct an independent check, by 
helping to ensure the credibility of the sponsorship information 
provided by the lessee in response to the licensee's inquiries. For 
those who would prefer not to pursue the screenshot option discussed 
below, the certification approach has the benefit of providing an 
alternative means of verification. Moreover, certifications have the 
value of reminding lessees of the foreign sponsorship identification 
rules and ensuring that they provide above board sponsorship 
information to broadcasters.
    21. The Commission streamlined significantly the certification 
proposal contained in the Second NPRM. Under the adopted certification 
option, both a licensee and a lessee must complete a certification 
reflecting the communications and inquiries required under the existing 
rules. Licensees and lessees will have the option either to use the 
streamlined standardized certification language set forth in Appendices 
C and D of the Second R&O, and set forth below, or to use language 
created by the parties. Rather than the two and a half page 
certifications proposed in the Second NPRM, the Commission developed 
one-page templates for the licensee and lessee certifications, based on 
a straightforward and familiar ``check box'' format. While the 
templates do include citations to the legal sources

[[Page 57779]]

defining the various categories of foreign governmental entities, most 
licensee and lessee employees should be able to complete the forms 
quickly and readily, based upon their existing knowledge and 
understanding. The lessee is being asked to sign a certification 
regarding its own status. The lessee should already know if it is a 
registered FARA agent, or is listed as a U.S.-based foreign media 
outlet on the Commission's website, because these registrations/
listings are self-reported. Similarly, a lessee should already know if 
it is a government of a foreign country or a foreign political party. 
With regard to those further back in the chain of producing and/or 
distributing the programming, the lessee is being asked only about its 
actual knowledge at the time it signs the certification. It is highly 
unlikely that either licensee or lessee should have to engage in any 
type of research to respond to the queries contained in the 
certifications. These are the same inquiries the Commission adopted in 
the First R&O, only formatted now as a certification.
    22. If licensees and lessees prefer not to use the Commission's 
templates, they may use their own certification language, provided that 
language addresses the points listed in 47 CFR 73.1212(j)(3)(i) through 
(iii). Several commenters expressed concerns that licensees already 
have developed their own certifications based on the existing foreign 
sponsorship identification rules and that revising these certifications 
would be costly. The Commission is persuaded that self-generated 
certifications can fulfill its certification requirements provided 
these certifications contain the information and inquiries currently 
required by the foreign sponsorship identification rules. Specifically, 
a licensee's certification should confirm that the licensee:

    (1) informed the lessee of the foreign sponsorship disclosure 
requirement;
    (2) asked the lessee whether it falls into any of the categories 
that would qualify it as a ``foreign governmental entity;''
    (3) asked the lessee whether it knows if any individual/entity 
further back in the chain of producing and/or distributing the 
programming to be aired qualifies as a foreign governmental entity 
and has provided some type of inducement to air the programming;
    (4) sought a written certification in response from the lessee; 
and
    (5) obtained the necessary information for a disclosure if one 
is required.

A lessee's certification should convey the information needed to 
determine whether a disclosure is required and the information needed 
for a broadcast disclosure if one is required.

    23. Regardless of whether the Commission's templates or a 
licensee's and lessee's own certifications are used, both the 
licensee's and lessee's certifications must be dated and signed by an 
employee or other representative of the entity who can attest to the 
fact that these actions were taken. Irrespective of whether a licensee 
chooses to use the template certification language or its own language, 
licensees are encouraged to include a provision in their lease 
agreements requiring the lessee to notify the licensee about any change 
in the lessee's status such as to trigger the foreign sponsorship 
identification rules. Because these certification requirements 
encapsulate the extant information and inquiry requirements adopted in 
the First R&O, it is unlikely that any preexisting certification 
language that licensees have employed will require much revision, if 
any.
    24. Screenshot Option. As an alternative to the certification 
option, licensees may choose to ask their lessees for screenshots of 
lessees' search results of two Federal Government websites. This option 
essentially replaces the verification requirement that the D.C. Circuit 
vacated, with the key difference being that the lessee conducts the 
searches instead of the licensee. The D.C. Circuit determined that it 
was beyond the scope of section 317(c) to require a licensee to 
independently verify a lessee's statement that the lessee was not 
listed in the Department of Justice's FARA database as a FARA agent or 
in the Commission's U.S.-based foreign media outlet reports. 
Consequently, consistent with the hypothetical raised during oral 
argument before the D.C. Circuit in NAB v. FCC, the Commission now 
determined that licensees may ask their lessees to perform those 
searches and provide screenshots of the search results. Hence, instead 
of asking the lessee to provide a responsive certification regarding 
its status, a licensee exercising this option would ask, consistent 
with the current foreign sponsorship identification rules, whether the 
lessee is a registered FARA agent or is listed in the Commission's 
U.S.-based foreign media outlet report. If the lessee responds ``no,'' 
the licensee would then ask the lessee to provide screenshots showing 
the results of lessee's searches of both of these websites. As 
discussed below, licensees choosing this option must still comply with 
all other aspects of the current rule, as they have been required to do 
since the compliance date of the First R&O. Moreover, consistent with 
the First R&O, licensees are encouraged to include in their lease 
agreements a requirement for lessees to provide notice of any change in 
status so as to trigger the need for a foreign sponsorship disclosure.
    25. Some commenters have objected to the screenshot approach based 
on erroneous assumptions about what such a search requires. The FARA 
searches are simple name searches, initiated by merely entering a name 
in a search box. As with the requirement that the D.C. Circuit vacated, 
if the name search does not generate any results, no further search is 
needed. If the name search does generate results, the broadcaster's 
duty is to exercise reasonable diligence to ascertain whether the 
lessee is subject to a disclosure requirement--precisely what the 
statute requires.
    26. Moreover, lessees are looking for their own names. A lessee is 
not doing a FARA database search to learn whether it is registered, 
such as to necessitate experimenting with different iterations of its 
name. A lessee, or someone within lessee's organization, would know 
whether it is a FARA registrant, or U.S.-based foreign media outlet. As 
such, the lessee will only be providing screenshots if, in response to 
licensee's queries, the lessee states that it is neither a FARA agent 
nor a U.S.-based foreign media outlet. In short, the name search only 
entails confirming that the lessee's status is neither a FARA 
registrant or a U.S.-based foreign media outlet. The FARA database has 
different search fields. The FARA website provides for an ``Active 
Registrants'' search link, and the Commission recommends that lessees 
use this link because its rules only cover those FARA agents who are 
currently registered on the Department of Justice FARA site.
    27. Similarly, the Commission's website lists the names of all the 
entities that have reported as U.S.-based foreign media outlets, and 
all that is required is a screenshot of this list to show whether the 
lessee's name appears on the list at the time of the licensee's 
required inquiries. No searches or copying of multiple Commission 
reports are required, as the list appears on the Commission's U.S.-
based foreign media outlet web page. Lessees need only go to the 
following link at the time of entering into a lease agreement or at 
renewal and take one photo: https://www.fcc.gov/united-states-based-foreign-media-outlets.
2. Leases Renewed Within a One-Year Period
    28. In response to several commenters' request that the Commission 
clarify the scope of the

[[Page 57780]]

term ``lease,'' the Commission affirmed its position in the First R&O 
that the term applies to any agreement, written or not, where a 
licensee grants to another party the right to program on its station in 
exchange for some form of consideration. The term applies irrespective 
of the terms or duration of the agreement, and regardless of whether 
the parties label or view the agreement as a time brokerage agreement, 
a local marketing agreement, or something else. Therefore, an agreement 
is not excluded from the definition of ``lease'' for purposes of the 
foreign sponsorship identification rules merely because it is an 
informal, short term, and/or week-to-week type of agreement. The 
Commission addressed the rules' applicability to certain types of 
programming, but it clarified that applicability of the rules is not 
determined by the title, terms, or duration of an agreement.
    29. Nevertheless, in response to commenter concerns about 
frequently having to repeat the certification/screenshot process for 
short term leases, the Commission concluded that, where a licensee and 
the same lessee enter into recurring leases for the same programming 
over a one year period, the licensee need only exercise its reasonable 
diligence obligations, including the certification or screenshot 
process, once per year. This modification of the proposals contained in 
the Second NPRM addresses concerns raised in the record about the 
burdens associated with the production of multiple certifications/
screenshots over a limited period of time when the lease concerns both 
the same lessee and same programming. An example of what is meant by 
``same lessee'' and ``same programming'' in this context would be House 
of Worship X leasing time for the live broadcast of its weekly 
religious service, every Sunday from 11 a.m. till 12 p.m. While the 
specific broadcasts would differ week to week, the lessee would 
continue to be House of Worship X and the program would be its live 
religious service broadcast. By contrast, if House of Worship X decides 
to use its regular time slot to provide something other than its weekly 
religious service--e.g., a panel discussion with various civic 
leaders--that would be considered different programming that would not 
fall within the one year exemption, and, thus, would require licensee 
and lessee to engage in the reasonable diligence requirements laid out 
in the Commission's rules.
3. Lack of Adequate Response From Lessee
    30. The Commission decided not to adopt the notification 
requirement proposed in the Second NPRM that proposed to require 
licensees to notify the Media Bureau about a lessee's failure to 
respond. The Commission recognized that there may be instances when, 
despite a licensee's efforts to comply with the foreign sponsorship 
identification rules, a lessee may fail to respond, or may fail to 
respond adequately, to a licensee's queries or request for a 
certification/screenshots. Thus, if a licensee does not obtain a 
response, or obtains an inadequate response, from the lessee to its 
reasonable diligence inquiries, it may continue to air the lessee's 
programming and will not be required to report such non-responses to 
the Commission. If, however, it is determined at a later date that the 
programming should have included a foreign sponsorship disclosure, the 
Commission may conduct a fact-specific inquiry to determine whether the 
licensee met its obligation under section 317(c) to ``exercise 
reasonable diligence to obtain'' the necessary information, such as by 
not making further inquiry of the lessee.
4. Recordkeeping Requirement
    31. Licensees must retain all of their certifications and 
screenshots for the length of the license term or one year, whichever 
is longer, pursuant to the record retention requirement contained in 47 
CFR 73.1212(j)(3)(v). As noted above, under the screenshot approach, 
licensees must still comply with the pre-existing requirement to inform 
lessees of the foreign sponsorship identification rules, pursuant to 
Sec.  73.1212(j)(3)(i), and make the inquiries contained in Sec.  
73.1212(j)(3)(ii) through (iii) of the rules. Also, consistent with the 
pre-existing rules, under the screenshot approach a licensee must still 
memorialize in some way its compliance with Sec.  73.1212(j)(i) through 
(iii).
    32. Although the Second NPRM proposed that licensees retain the 
certifications and screenshots in their OPIFs, based on commenter 
concerns, the Commission was persuaded that licensees should have 
greater flexibility regarding the manner in which these documents are 
stored. Licensees must already upload their lease agreements into their 
OPIFs, along with records of any foreign sponsorship identification 
disclosures. As a result, the public already has a mechanism to 
determine which programs are provided by foreign governmental entities. 
Thus, the Commission found it reasonable to respond to commenter 
concerns by providing more flexibility regarding retention of the 
certifications and screenshots than initially proposed. Hence, 
licensees must retain their certifications and/or screenshots, along 
with documentation of inquiries that accompany the screenshots, but may 
elect to do so in either their own OPIFs or in their internal files, 
provided that licensees make such documents available to the Commission 
promptly upon request.
5. Legal Authority
    33. The newly-adopted regulations are consistent with the Act and 
the court's decision in NAB v. FCC. The Commission declined to address 
challenges by commenters to the existing rules not under review in the 
Second NPRM. Commenters' challenges to the Commission's authority fall 
into two categories. First, a number of commenters sought to reopen 
issues already decided in the First R&O under the guise of challenging 
the Commission's authority to implement the proposals at issue in the 
Second NPRM. As discussed in more detail below, the Commission 
previously established in the First R&O that licensees must inform 
their lessees about the foreign sponsorship identification rules and 
inquire about the status of lessees and those further back in the chain 
of production and distribution of programming. These issues were not 
the subject of the Second NPRM. Second, commenters also challenged the 
Commission's authority to adopt the specific proposals contained in the 
Second NPRM. Below, the Commission first declined to address challenges 
to those issues previously settled in the First R&O before addressing 
challenges to the Commission's authority to establish the requirements 
established in the Second R&O.
    34. Challenges to Previously Settled Issues in the First R&O. More 
than two years after the Commission adopted the foreign sponsorship 
identification rules, and after themselves challenging a portion of 
those rules in court, two commenters filing jointly disputed various 
requirements that are fundamental to the foreign sponsorship 
identification rules that the Commission established in the First R&O. 
For example, they contested the requirement that licensees must inform 
their lessees of the foreign sponsorship identification rules--a rule 
established in the First R&O. Similarly, they challenged the previously 
established

[[Page 57781]]

requirement that a licensee inquire of its lessee whether it has 
knowledge of anyone further back in the chain of producing/distributing 
the programming who qualifies as a foreign governmental entity and has 
provided some type of inducement to air the programming. The Commission 
sought comment on these requirements in the first notice of proposed 
rulemaking (85 FR 74955, November 24, 2020) and adopted them in the 
First R&O without reopening them in the Second NPRM, in which the 
Commission made clear that it only intended to address the issues 
vacated by the Court. The Commission declined to revisit additional 
issues with respect to the existing rules. If commenters wished to 
challenge such authority, they had the opportunity to do so in the 
earlier administrative proceeding and in the NAB v. FCC litigation, and 
should have done so then.
    35. The Second NPRM never suggested that the issues the commenters 
seek to reopen were under consideration in the instant proceeding. If 
anything, the Second NPRM spoke of the obligations to inform and make 
inquiries as established requirements. The questions posed in the 
Second NPRM regarding the Commission's authority concerned the 
authority to establish the requirements proposed in the Second NPRM and 
no other. Nothing in the Second NPRM suggested that the Commission 
intended to re-evaluate a licensee's duty to inform its lessee of the 
foreign sponsorship identification rules and make certain inquiries of 
the lessee.
    36. Compliance with Section 317 of the Act. The Commission has 
ample authority to implement the certification and screenshot 
requirements established in the Second R&O based on section 317 of the 
Act. The certification and screenshot options described above fit 
squarely within the NAB v. FCC court's determination that section 
317(c) imposes a duty of inquiry, and not a duty of investigation. 
Licensees' certifications consist of nothing more than a reduction to 
written form of those inquiry requirements established in the First R&O 
and codified at 47 CFR 73.1212(j)(3). These inquiries are directed to 
the lessee and concern the lessee's own status and its knowledge of 
those further back in the chain of producing/distributing the 
programming. The screenshot alternative retains in place all the 
previously established requirements, except for the vacated 
verification requirement. The only difference being that previously, if 
the lessee stated it was not a U.S.-based foreign media outlet, or a 
FARA agent, the licensee had to verify this answer by reviewing the 
Department of Justice's FARA database and the Commission's U.S.-based 
foreign media outlet report. In lieu of this, the licensee will now ask 
the lessee for screenshots depicting its search results of the 
Department of Justice's FARA database and the Commission's U.S.-based 
foreign media outlet report.
    37. Commenters argue that licensees only have a duty to inquire. 
The Commission's rules require only that a licensee inquire of the 
lessee (i.e., the program's sponsor); they do not make licensees 
responsible for the truth of the information they obtain from lessees 
by imposing independent investigatory or other obligations. With regard 
to a licensee's certification option, it is merely required that the 
inquiry be in written form. And, consistent with the court's 
determination that the statute is narrowly drawn, the newly-adopted 
requirements allow licensees to carry leased programming even in the 
absence of actually obtaining foreign sponsorship information from the 
lessee. However, in such situations, if a question arises later about 
whether a disclosure was needed, the licensee must be able to 
demonstrate, in the event of a fact-specific inquiry by the Commission, 
that it exercised reasonable diligence in seeking the information. The 
newly-adopted rules will help identify the types of effort necessary 
for licensees to demonstrate reasonable diligence in carrying out their 
duty of inquiry. Hence, section 317 gives the Commission ample 
authority to require licensees to ask their lessees for certifications 
or screenshots in order to determine whether a foreign sponsorship 
disclosure is needed.
    38. The Commission disagreed with the view that section 317(b), 
when read in the context of the entirety of sections 317 and 507, as 
well as the legislative history associated with the passage of these 
provisions, suggests that section 317(b) should be read as a brake on 
the licensee's duty to make inquiries pursuant to section 317(c). 
Unlike Section 317(c), which imposes an obligation upon licensees to 
exercise reasonable diligence to obtain information, section 317(b) 
imposes an obligation on the station to air an appropriate disclosure 
if it receives a report that payments were made to employees, or 
persons involved in the production or preparation of the program, in 
regard to material included in the programming to be broadcast by the 
station. The Commission does not interpret section 317(b) to be a limit 
on the inquiries the licensee must make pursuant to section 317(c). 
Moreover, commenters' interpretation would contravene the Commission's 
mandate under section 317(e) to carry out the statute's provisions.
    39. Compliance with Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The 
Commission has clearly and consistently articulated that licensees' 
responsibilities as trustees of the nation's airwaves include 
sponsorship identification based on the fundamental principle that the 
public has the right to know whether the broadcast material has been 
paid for and by whom. Commenters assert that the proposed rules violate 
the APA, that the Commission has only identified a few instances of 
foreign government sponsored programming, and that one of the stations 
cited is no longer airing such programming. These assertions miss the 
point that almost by definition when foreign governmental sponsorship 
is undisclosed, neither the Commission nor the American public will 
know about it. Moreover, Federal agencies have authority for 
``precautionary or prophylactic responses to perceived risks'' based on 
documented abuses. See Chamber of Commerce of U.S. v. SEC, 412 F.3d 
133, 141 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (quoting Certified Color Mfrs. Ass'n v. 
Mathews, 543 F.2d 284, 296 (D.C. Cir. 1976)). Furthermore, foreign 
governments are continuing to disseminate programming over U.S. 
broadcast media and, thus, there is a continued need for robust foreign 
sponsorship identification rules. Hence, it is reasonable to conclude 
that the reports of foreign government attempts to disseminate 
programming via broadcast television and radio call for targeted action 
to ensure audiences are aware when a foreign government or its 
representatives are seeking to persuade the American public. Regardless 
of the number of reported instances of undisclosed foreign government-
provided programming, Congress and the Commission have consistently 
expressed their strong interest in the identification of foreign 
government sponsored programming on the airwaves.
    40. In response to commenters' concerns that the rules proposed in 
the Second NPRM would be overly burdensome for broadcasters, the 
Commission emphasized how limited its action is in the Second R&O. It 
replaced the vacated name search requirement with a certification 
requirement and an alternative screen shot approach, which is 
essentially the name search requirement in a form that comports with 
the statute as interpreted by the D.C. Circuit in NAB v. FCC. The 
Commission also has significantly modified its initial proposals with

[[Page 57782]]

regard to these new rules. As discussed above, the standardized 
certification language appended to the Second R&O has been reduced 
significantly and now provides a simple check-box format. Additionally, 
application of the Commission's standardized certification language is 
now one of two options available to licensees. Similarly, in response 
to commenter objections about uploading certifications and other 
documentation to their OPIFs, the Commission decided to permit 
licensees to instead maintain this documentation in their private files 
if they choose.
    41. Moreover, in response to commenter concerns about having to 
repeat the certification or screenshot requirements on a weekly basis 
for religious programmers, many of whom may not have the resources to 
enter into long-term leases, the Commission modified the frequency with 
which the certification/screenshot process must be conducted for such 
leases. Similarly, concerns about uploading documents associated with 
short term leases to the OPIFs have been addressed by permitting 
licensees to retain their certifications/screenshots in their internal 
files. With regard to the argument that new requirements would further 
complicate or burden existing business relationships, the Commission 
grandfathered existing leases until they are either up for renewal or 
the parties enter into a new lease. Finally, the Commission decided not 
to adopt the Second NPRM's proposal to have licensees report to the 
Commission when lessees have failed to respond to licensee requests for 
certifications/screenshots.
    42. Thus, the reasonable diligence requirements are tailored 
appropriately to accomplish the goal of ensuring the accurate detection 
and disclosure of foreign government-provided programming while also 
mitigating the burden of compliance on broadcasters. Transparency 
regarding the source of broadcast programming, particularly foreign 
government-provided programming, gives broadcast audiences the 
information they need to fully appreciate the programming. Moreover, an 
expectation of transparency regarding the source of programming also 
enhances audience trust in broadcast programming overall--unlike other 
media, broadcast audiences can feel confident that either their 
programming is provided by their local licensee, or the source of other 
programming is being disclosed. The Commission's careful tailoring 
executes a balanced approach, minimizing the overall burden of 
compliance on broadcasters while concurrently supporting the objectives 
of accurate detection and disclosure, so as to ensure that the American 
broadcast audience is informed about the source of its programming.

B. Application of Foreign Sponsorship Identification Requirements to 
Different Types of Programming

    43. The Commission clarified that its foreign sponsorship 
identification requirements will not apply to advertising for 
commercial products or services to the extent such advertising falls 
within the exemption established in 47 CFR 73.1212(f). It also 
clarified that the foreign sponsorship identification rules will not 
apply to political candidate advertisements. It did, however, determine 
that the foreign sponsorship identification rules will apply to issue 
advertisements and paid PSAs. It also confirmed that the rule changes 
contained in the Second R&O do not alter its finding in the First R&O 
that the foreign sponsorship identification rules should not apply to 
noncommercial and educational broadcast stations (NCEs). The Commission 
declined to create an exemption from its foreign sponsorship 
identification rules for religious programming and locally produced 
and/or distributed programming. It also addressed the application of 
its rules to section 325(c) permit holders.
1. Advertisements for Commercial Goods and Services
    44. The Commission clarified that its long-standing sponsorship 
identification requirements for advertising for commercial products or 
services, as currently set out in 47 CFR 73.1212(f), also apply in the 
context of foreign sponsorship identification. Accordingly, the 
Commission dismissed the Petition for Clarification as moot because it 
addressed the issues raised in that petition in the Second R&O. It 
recognized that the use of the term ``traditional, short-form 
advertising'' in the First R&O inadvertently created unnecessary 
confusion about the application of the foreign sponsorship 
identification rules. While the intention behind using the term may 
have been to provide greater clarity, due to the resulting confusion, 
the Commission reversed its previous decision to use that term and 
relied instead on the well-established exemption from sponsorship 
disclosure contained in 47 CFR 73.1212(f).
    45. Section 73.1212(f) provides that in the case of broadcast 
matter advertising commercial products or services, an announcement 
stating the sponsor's corporate or trade name, or the name of the 
sponsor's product, when it is clear that the mention of the name of the 
product constitutes a sponsorship identification, shall be deemed 
sufficient for the purpose of Sec.  73.1212 and only one such 
announcement need be made at any time during the course of the 
broadcast.
    46. If broadcast matter for a commercial product or service meets 
the requirements for a disclosure exemption under 47 CFR 73.1212(f), 
the licensee need not make the inquiries contained in 47 CFR 
73.1212(j), nor is the licensee required to air the disclosure set 
forth in 47 CFR 73.1212(j)(1)(i). For an advertisement to fall under 
the commercial exemption provisions of 47 CFR 73.1212(f), it must 
include the sponsor's corporate or trade name, or the name of the 
sponsor's product, when it is clear that the mention of the name of the 
product constitutes a sponsorship identification. By clarifying that 
the foreign sponsorship identification rules do not trump the pre-
existing sponsorship identification rules for advertising, the 
Commission addressed the concerns raised by commenters about the 
terminology used in the First R&O with regard to advertising.
    47. The Second NPRM sought comment on whether to establish a ``safe 
harbor'' for advertisements of a certain length. Based on the record, 
the Commission found that it is better not to place any minimum or 
maximum time limit on the broadcast matter that is subject to the 
exemption established in 47 CFR 73.1212(f). Rather, the Commission was 
persuaded to follow long-standing Commission precedent that 
distinguishes programming that is entitled to the disclosure exemption 
provided by Sec.  73.1212(f). This clarification should address the 
questions that arose in response to the Commission's use of the term 
``short-form advertising'' in the First R&O. With this additional 
clarification about the applicability of Sec.  73.1212(f), the 
Commission addressed the concerns raised in the record about the length 
of various advertisements.
    48. The Commission noted, however, that its foreign sponsorship 
identification rules continue to apply to any broadcast matter that 
does not fit within Sec.  73.1212(f). Just as the general sponsorship 
identification requirements contained in Sec.  73.1212 apply to 
programming that does not fall within the exemption of Sec.  
73.1212(f), so too will the foreign sponsorship identification 
requirements apply to such programming. Thus, to the extent foreign 
government-provided programming is not for a commercial

[[Page 57783]]

product or service that includes the sponsor's corporate or trade name, 
and would not otherwise be entitled to the disclosure exemption 
provided by Sec.  73.1212(f), the licensee must engage in the inquiries 
and other steps laid out in Sec.  73.1212(j).
2. Political Candidate Advertisements; Issue Advertisements; Paid 
Public Service Announcements
    49. In addition to the commercial products and services exemption 
discussed above, the Commission exempted from the foreign sponsorship 
identification requirements the purchase of broadcast time by or on 
behalf of legally qualified candidates or their authorized committees 
pursuant to section 315 of the Act (``political candidate 
advertisements''). Political candidate advertisements, as used herein, 
refers to ``uses'' of broadcast stations by legally qualified 
candidates and are governed primarily by section 315 of the Act, which 
subjects such uses to specific disclosure requirements. Section 
315(b)(2)(C) requires that a television advertisement from a legally 
qualified candidate include, at the end, a clearly identifiable 
photographic or similar image of the candidate, and a clearly readable 
printed statement, identifying the candidate and stating that the 
candidate has approved the broadcast and that the candidate's 
authorized committee paid for the broadcast. Section 315(b)(2)(D) 
requires that a radio advertisement from a legally qualified candidate 
include, at the end, a personal audio statement by the candidate that 
identifies the candidate and the office the candidate is seeking, and 
indicates that the candidate has approved the broadcast. See 47 U.S.C. 
315(b)(2)(C) and (D).
    50. The Second NPRM sought comment on the scope of the advertising 
exemption adopted in the First R&O, and several parties in response 
asked whether advertisements paid by or on behalf of legally qualified 
candidates or their authorized committees would be subject to the 
requirements of the foreign sponsorship identification rules. The 
Commission recognized that there are statutory restrictions as well as 
Federal Election Commission rules prohibiting contributions to Federal, 
state, and local candidates by ``foreign nationals,'' a term that is 
defined to include certain of the entities covered by its foreign 
sponsorship identification rules, specifically a ``government of a 
foreign country'' and a ``foreign political party.'' See Federal 
Election Commission, 11 CFR 110.20(b) and (c); Department of Justice, 
52 U.S.C. 30121(a). Because of these restrictions, the likelihood that 
political candidate advertisements would require disclosures under the 
foreign sponsorship identification rules is greatly limited. 
Accordingly, the Commission was persuaded to exempt political candidate 
advertisements from the foreign sponsorship identification 
requirements.
    51. However, issue advertisements and paid PSAs will be subject to 
the foreign sponsorship identification rules. For purposes of these 
rules, and consistent with the Act and the Commission's rules, the 
Commission clarified that issue advertisements are defined as any paid 
political matter or matter involving the discussion of a controversial 
issue of public importance, regardless of the length of the 
programming. See 47 U.S.C. 317(a)(2); 47 CFR 73.1212(e). As noted 
above, the Commission specifically exempted advertisements made by or 
on behalf of legally qualified candidates for public office or their 
authorized committees, and as such they will not be considered issue 
advertisements. Its exemption from the foreign sponsorship 
identification rules for political candidate advertisements is based 
largely on the fact that foreign nationals are prohibited from making 
contributions to political candidates. Moreover, section 315 of the Act 
provides a level of transparency regarding the source of funding for 
political candidate advertising that is not available with issue 
advertising and paid PSAs because section 315 requires political 
candidates themselves to state that their authorized committee has paid 
for the advertisement and that the candidate approves the 
advertisement. While foreign nationals also are prohibited from funding 
certain types of issue advertisements related to elections, the 
Commission's definition of issue advertisements for purposes of these 
rules is broader in scope in that its definition encompasses issue 
advertisements unrelated to elections. Therefore, the Commission cannot 
be as assured of foreign noninvolvement with respect to issue 
advertisements. Rather than adopt a definition that attempts to parse 
the different types of issue advertisements, and to ensure maximum 
transparency for viewers and listeners, the Commission applied the 
foreign sponsorship identification rules to all issue advertisements 
and paid PSAs.
    52. As reflected in the First R&O, the Commission's definition of 
``lease'' for purposes of the foreign sponsorship disclosure 
requirements includes ``any agreement in which a licensee makes a 
discrete block of broadcast time on its station available to be 
programmed by another party in return for some form of compensation.'' 
This definition is sufficiently broad to cover issue advertising and 
paid PSAs within the scope of the rules. This is a point that regulated 
entities well understood, as reflected in the filing of a Petition for 
Clarification. Certainly, paid PSAs and issue advertising could be used 
by foreign governmental entities to access U.S. airwaves to persuade 
the American public. Thus, ensuring that audiences are accurately 
informed when foreign governmental entities sponsor issue 
advertisements and paid PSAs is equally important as it is in the case 
of other types of paid programming. Indeed, section 317 of the Act 
recognizes the heightened concern about the source of issue 
advertisements, providing that the Commission shall not be precluded 
from requiring that an appropriate announcement shall be made at the 
time of the broadcast of any political program or program involving the 
discussion of any controversial issue for which any material was 
furnished as an inducement to the broadcast of such program. As such, 
it follows that such advertising should also be vetted for the possible 
inclusion of material provided by a foreign governmental entity.
    53. The Commission's decision to make the foreign sponsorship 
identification rules applicable to issue advertisements and paid PSAs 
falls within the scope of this proceeding. In the Second NPRM, the 
Commission sought comment on ``what criteria the Commission might adopt 
to distinguish between advertising and programming arrangements for the 
lease of airtime in a way that does not jeopardize the Commission's 
goals in this proceeding.'' Additionally, it sought, and received, 
comment on whether there are ``key characteristics that could assist in 
distinguishing advertising spots from a lease of airtime on a station. 
. . .'' In considering the key characteristics for political candidate 
advertisements, the Commission determined that the risk of influence by 
a ``government of a foreign country'' and a ``foreign political party'' 
is minimal. Therefore, such advertisements will be exempt from the 
foreign sponsorship identification rules. In contrast, as noted above, 
issue advertisements and paid PSAs do not share those same 
characteristics. Issue advertisements and paid PSAs cover a wide range 
of subject matter and are purchased by a wide range of sponsors. As 
such, there is a risk that contributions to such programming might have 
been made by foreign governmental entities.

[[Page 57784]]

    54. Broadcasters allege that applying the rules to issue 
advertisements and paid PSAs will result in costly burdens that will 
discourage political advertisers from using traditional media by, among 
other things, slowing down transaction times for advertisements that 
rely on quick turnaround times, requiring that signatures be obtained, 
and necessitating training for advertising sales staff. This order 
alleviated a number of the proposed requirements contained in the 
Second NPRM, which broadcasters cited to as examples of burdens that 
would adversely impact them in the context of issue advertisements and 
paid PSAs. For example, this order significantly simplified and 
shortened the Commission's standardized certification templates, while 
also allowing broadcasters to use their own certification language 
should they choose to do so. Based on concerns raised in the record, 
the certification requirement contained in this order does not require 
licensees to obtain ``signed certifications'' as was proposed in the 
Second NPRM, but rather states that if a licensee does not obtain a 
response, or obtains an inadequate response to its reasonable diligence 
inquiries, it may continue to air the programming. To the extent that 
broadcasters are concerned about whether obtaining signed 
certifications might delay their ability to meet their current OPIF 
filing requirements under the political advertising rules, this order 
allows broadcasters to file their foreign sponsorship identification 
documentation in their own records. To the extent that broadcasters 
wish to keep all such documentation in their OPIFs, they need only 
supplement their OPIF file after receiving the certifications or 
screenshots. Therefore, the modifications made in this order to the 
proposals contained in the Second NPRM address many of the concerns 
identified by broadcasters regarding the application of the foreign 
sponsorship identification rules to issue advertisements and paid PSAs. 
The Commission concluded that the benefits of applying the foreign 
sponsorship identification rules to issue advertisements and paid PSAs 
outweigh the burdens associated with complying with the rules.
3. Programming on Noncommercial and Educational Stations
    55. The Commission confirmed that the Second R&O does not alter its 
prior finding that the foreign sponsorship identification rules should 
not apply to NCEs. The Commission prohibits NCEs from receiving 
compensation in exchange for broadcasting programs (i.e., leased 
programming). Because the foreign sponsorship identification rules 
apply only to leased programming, the Commission concluded in the First 
R&O that any NCEs in compliance with the prohibition should not fall 
within the ambit of the foreign sponsorship identification 
requirements. The First R&O explained that NCE stations will rarely, if 
ever, face the need to address the foreign sponsorship disclosure rules 
given the limitations on their ability to engage in leasing 
arrangements. The Commission confirmed that none of the newly-adopted 
rule modifications in the Second R&O has any effect on its previous 
conclusion.
3. Religious and Locally Produced and/or Locally Distributed 
Programming
    56. The Commission declined to adopt commenters' request to create 
exemptions from the new foreign sponsorship identification rule 
requirements for certain types of programming. The Commission declined 
to revisit the existing rule requirements for the reasons set forth 
above. Commenters argued that the Commission should narrow the 
definition of ``lease'' by granting exemptions for certain categories 
of programming, specifically religious programming and locally produced 
and/or locally distributed programming. The Commission found that 
creating the requested exemption for religious programming would not be 
content-neutral. Additionally, the mere fact that programming is 
locally produced and/or locally distributed does not signify that the 
programming lacks material provided by a foreign governmental entity, 
such that there should be a blanket carveout for locally produced and/
or distributed programming from the new foreign sponsorship 
identification rule requirements.
    57. The Commission recognized that religious programming and 
locally produced and/or locally distributed programming play a vital 
role in supporting local communities. Just as important as having 
access to such programming is knowing the true source of the 
programming. Commenters made two arguments in favor of their requested 
exemptions. First, they asserted that these exemptions are justified 
because, based on their inquiries to date, they have not found any 
foreign governmental entities sponsoring religious programming or 
locally produced and/or locally distributed programming. Second, 
commenters claimed that the new foreign sponsorship identification rule 
requirements are so burdensome that, ultimately, they will lead to a 
reduction in religious and locally produced and/or locally distributed 
programming.
    58. With regard to the first argument, the Commission emphasized 
that a prevalence of foreign propaganda on radio and television 
stations is not a prerequisite to Commission action. Furthermore, 
providing a consistent set of rules for all leased programming 
streamlines the process of compliance for licensees and closes the door 
to any attempt to exploit loopholes that might arise from these 
exemptions. In addition, the argument that there is a lack of foreign 
government-provided ``propaganda'' on religious or locally produced and 
distributed programming misses the aim of the Commission's rules. The 
foreign sponsorship identification rules are intended to notify the 
public when the source of the programming is a foreign governmental 
entity. Therefore, as a general principle of law, the content of the 
broadcast matter for purposes of these rules is irrelevant, and the 
issue of ``propaganda'' bears no weight.
    59. On the issue of burdens, as described above, the new rule 
requirements are limited in scope, and the Commission modified 
significantly the proposals contained in the Second NPRM to address 
many of the burden concerns noted by commenters. The newly-adopted 
requirements do not seek to favor or disfavor any particular type of 
programming. The rules do not prohibit any form of programming, but do 
seek to ensure that broadcast audiences are aware of the source of 
foreign government-provided programming. The Commission determined that 
the new rule requirements should be applied to all broadcast licensees, 
to fulfill its existing statutory duty to inquire about the source of 
programming, which contains no exemption for religious programming 
lessees or any other designation. It also determined that the new rules 
are a minimal extension of the long-standing sponsorship identification 
rules and in no way burden broadcasters' choice of leased programming 
or chill editorial discretion in favor of more sophisticated 
programmers.
    60. Some commenters contended that the new rule requirements will 
make it more expensive for licensees to air religious and locally 
produced and/or distributed programming. Citing Washington Post v. 
McManus, 944 F.3d 506 (4th Cir. 2019), they assert that the new rule 
requirements equate to ``putting a thumb on the scale against a 
particular type of speech in the competitive market . . .'' in 
violation of the First Amendment. The Commission

[[Page 57785]]

found the McManus case to be inapposite because that case involved the 
singling out of ``one particular topic of speech--campaign-related 
speech,'' whereas the new rule requirements apply equally to all forms 
of speech and are not content-based.
    61. In a similar vein, some commenters contended that the new rule 
requirements violate religious programmers' rights to freedom of speech 
under the Supreme Court's 2018 decision in National Institute of Family 
and Life Advocates (NIFLA) v. Becerra, 138 S.Ct. 2361 (2018). In that 
case, the Supreme Court held that to protect the petitioners' rights to 
freedom of speech, disclosure requirements must not be unduly 
burdensome, remedy a harm that is purely hypothetical, or extend more 
broadly than reasonably necessary. The Commission found this case, 
imposing a medical disclosure requirement, to be inapposite because the 
type of disclosure the Commission requires is wholly content-neutral. 
The Becerra case involved a content-based disclosure requirement, which 
was found to be an impermissible regulation of speech because the 
required disclosures in that case altered the content of petitioners' 
speech by requiring them to post information contrary to the messages 
they wished to convey. By contrast, the new requirements do not alter 
the content of the programming, nor do they prohibit or limit the 
ability of the licensee or lessee to air the programming or to convey 
whatever message is intended. The public has a legitimate interest in 
knowing the source of programming that is furnished by a foreign 
governmental entity, and broadcasters have demonstrated for years their 
capability of airing similar disclosures for programming sponsored by 
U.S. lessees. As described below, public awareness of the source of 
broadcast programming is a long-recognized compelling government 
interest, and the modifications the Commission has made in response to 
commenter concerns ensure that its rules are narrowly tailored.
    62. The new foreign sponsorship identification rule requirements 
comport with the strictures of the First Amendment of the U.S. 
Constitution. The rules at issue here are content-neutral--they apply 
to broadcast programming provided by any foreign governmental entity, 
regardless of the nature of the programming or whether the entity's 
interests are directly at odds with the United States. Accordingly, 
with respect to broadcasters, the disclosure requirements in question 
are subject to review under ``heightened rational basis,'' the less 
rigorous standard applied to content-neutral restrictions on that 
medium, and thus, as explained below, will be upheld if reasonably 
tailored to satisfy a substantial government interest. Even assuming, 
that intermediate scrutiny applies, the new rules satisfy review under 
this standard. As set forth below, the Commission determined that the 
government's interest in ensuring that audiences are accurately 
informed when foreign governmental entities sponsor broadcast 
programming is substantial and the rules are both ``reasonably 
tailored'' to further that interest.
    63. The Commission's application of section 317 for over eighty 
years, as well as Congress's 1960 amendments thereto, demonstrate a 
strong interest in requiring accurate sponsorship identification. 
Complete and accurate disclosure regarding the source of programming is 
critical to allowing audiences to determine the reliability and 
credibility of the information they receive. The Commission considers 
such transparency to be a critical part of broadcasters' public 
interest obligation to use the airwaves with which they are entrusted 
to benefit their local communities. Rather than abridging broadcasters' 
freedom of speech rights, disclosure of sponsorship promotes First 
Amendment and Communications Act goals by enhancing viewers' ability to 
assess the substance and value of foreign government-provided 
programming, thus promoting an informed public and improving the 
quality of public discourse. The new requirements further the 
government's interest by ensuring that licensees have met their duty of 
inquiry and thereby will ensure accurate sponsorship identification.
    64. The Commission believes the newly-adopted foreign sponsorship 
identification rule requirements will be evaluated under, and will 
fully withstand, the scrutiny applied to content-neutral restrictions 
on broadcasters. Notably, the rules do not ban any type of speech but 
merely require a procedure for documenting reasonable diligence 
inquiries in support of the factual disclosure of the source of certain 
of programming. Given this content-neutral function, the existing 
tailoring, and the Commission's strong objective of accurate detection 
and disclosure of foreign government-provided programming, the rules 
comply with the First Amendment as they are reasonably tailored to 
satisfy substantial government interests. And even if a court were to 
apply intermediate scrutiny, as opposed to heightened rational basis, 
the revised rules still would withstand such a stricter form of 
judicial review. The Commission has repeatedly stated the importance of 
promulgating rules that are substantially related to the agency's 
objective of ensuring that audiences are informed about the source of 
programming provided by foreign governmental entities. Ultimately, 
regardless of whether rational heightened basis or intermediate 
scrutiny is applied, the Commission concluded that its new foreign 
sponsorship identification rule requirements satisfy the First 
Amendment.
4. Programming on Stations With Section 325(c) Permits
    65. As explained in the Second NPRM, ``a section 325(c) permit is 
required when an entity produces programming in the United States but, 
rather than broadcasting the programming from a U.S.-licensed station, 
transmits or delivers the programming from a U.S. studio to a non-U.S. 
licensed station in a foreign country for broadcast by the foreign 
station into the United States.'' 47 U.S.C. 325(c). In the First R&O, 
the Commission added paragraph (k) to Sec.  73.1212, which makes 
section 325(c) permittees subject to foreign sponsorship identification 
requirements. In the Second NPRM, the Commission explained that given 
the nature of the section 325(c) permits, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 
73.1212(k), the foreign sponsorship identification disclosure 
requirements apply to any programming permitted to be delivered to 
foreign broadcast stations under an authorization pursuant to section 
325(c) of the Act if the material has been: (i) sponsored by a foreign 
governmental entity; (ii) paid for by a foreign governmental entity; 
(iii) furnished for free by a foreign governmental entity to the 
section 325(c) permit holder as an inducement to air the material on 
the foreign station; or (iv) provided by the section 325(c) permit 
holder to the foreign station where the section 325(c) permit holder is 
a foreign governmental entity. Where the section 325(c) permit holder 
itself is a foreign governmental entity, the disclosure requirements 
apply to all programming provided by the permit holder to a foreign 
station.
    66. In the Second NPRM, the Commission noted that applying foreign 
sponsorship identification disclosures to programs permitted to be 
delivered to foreign broadcast stations under an authorization pursuant 
to section 325(c) of the Act aims to level the playing field between 
programming aired by non-U.S. and U.S. broadcasters in the same

[[Page 57786]]

geographic area within the United States and to eliminate any potential 
loophole in the regulatory framework with respect to the identification 
of foreign government-provided programming that may result from this 
proceeding.
    67. In the Second NPRM, the Commission further stated that the 
foreign sponsorship identification rules apply to all programming 
provided by a section 325(c) permit holder to a foreign broadcast 
station, regardless of whether the programming is provided as part of a 
lease agreement or through some other arrangement. As explained, ``[i]n 
the context of section 325(c) permits, leasing of airtime is not a 
relevant prerequisite for application of the foreign sponsorship 
identification rules because section 325(c) permit holders' foreign 
broadcast arrangements can be struck in various ways, not just through 
the leasing of airtime, under the laws of foreign countries.'' The 
Commission further explained that in this context, ``[its] rules ensure 
that no material provided by a permit holder that is a foreign 
governmental entity is broadcast into the United States through the use 
of section 325(c) permits without the appropriate disclosures.'' To 
provide greater clarity regarding the application of these disclosure 
requirements in the context of programming subject to a section 325(c) 
permit, the Commission proposed to modify Sec.  73.1212(k) and sought 
comment on these proposed changes and clarifications. The Commission 
also sought comment on the need to apply the reasonable diligence 
requirements proposed in the Second NPRM to section 325(c) permit 
holders given that they presumably have direct knowledge of whether 
they are a foreign governmental entity. The Commission noted that, 
regardless, ``even if a permit holder is not itself a foreign 
governmental entity, the disclosure requirements apply to any part of 
its programming that is sponsored, paid for, or furnished for free by a 
foreign governmental entity either directly to the permit holder or to 
an entity farther back in the content production chain.'' To address 
such situations, the Commission sought comment on whether section 
325(c) permit holders should be required to exercise reasonable 
diligence to determine when a disclosure is needed. In addition, the 
Commission sought comment on whether section 325(c) permit holders 
should be required to place the certifications that were proposed in 
the Second NPRM, or other due diligence documentation, in the 
International Bureau Filing System (IBFS) and if so, for how long.
    68. No comments were submitted in response to the Second NPRM 
regarding the programming on stations with 325(c) permits. Accordingly, 
the Commission adopted the proposed changes and clarifications proposed 
in the Second NPRM. It reconfirmed that it is the responsibility of the 
section 325(c) permit holder to ensure that the foreign station 
broadcasts the disclosure where required along with the programming 
provided by the permit holder. The Commission reminded section 325(c) 
permit holders that they are obligated to place copies of any 
disclosures made, along with required related information as described 
in Sec.  73.1212(k), in the publicly available International 
Communications Filing System (ICFS).

C. Existing Leases

    69. Any lease agreements that are entered into, or that are 
renewed, on or after the effective date of the revisions to Sec.  
73.1212(j)(3) adopted in the Second R&O must comply with those 
requirements. Commenters asked that the Commission grandfather all 
lease agreements already in place at the time that the new rules go 
into effect. The Commission agreed with commenters and determined that 
the newly-adopted rule modifications will apply only to new leases and 
renewals of existing leases entered into on or after the effective date 
for these rule modifications. The Commission therefore declined to 
adopt its proposal in the Second NPRM to apply the modified rule to 
existing lease agreements with a six-month grace period for compliance.

D. Digital Equity and Inclusion

    70. The Commission maintains a continuing effort to advance digital 
equity for all, including people of color, persons with disabilities, 
persons who live in rural or Tribal areas, and others who are or have 
been historically underserved, marginalized, or adversely affected by 
persistent poverty or inequality. As such, in the Second NPRM the 
Commission sought comment on whether any of the proposals discussed 
therein might promote or inhibit advances in diversity, equity, 
inclusion, and accessibility. While not specifically responding to the 
request for comment on Digital Equity and Inclusion, some commenters 
argued that a certification requirement has the effect of discouraging 
diverse entrants by burdening local marketing agreements (LMAs) and 
time brokerage agreements (TBAs). Given the adopted revisions to the 
proposed rules in order to resolve claimed burdens, the Commission 
found that its actions will not inhibit diverse entrants from 
participating in the broadcast media marketplace.
    71. The Second R&O furthers the Commission's ongoing commitment to 
advance digital equity by simplifying its compliance procedures, which 
will minimize any possibility that the foreign sponsorship 
identification rules will discourage the participation of small 
programmers, including minority-owned programmers, as some commenters 
have asserted. Further, the Second R&O adopts regulations that are 
content-neutral and that apply to all broadcasters and lessees equally, 
and will not inhibit advances in diversity, equity, inclusion, and 
accessibility.

IV. Procedural Matters

    72. Regulatory Flexibility Act. As required by the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), as amended, an Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Certification was incorporated into the Second NPRM. See 5 
U.S.C. 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREA), Public 
Law 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996). The SBREFA was enacted as 
Title II of the Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996. Pursuant 
to the RFA, the Commission's Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification 
relating to the Second R&O is below. See 5 U.S.C. 604.
    73. Paperwork Reduction Act. The Second R&O may contain new or 
revised information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) (PRA). 
All such new or modified information collection requirements will be 
submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under 
section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal 
agencies will be invited to comment on any new or modified information 
collection requirements contained in this proceeding. In addition, the 
Commission notes that pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief 
Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), it 
previously sought specific comment on how the Commission might further 
reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns 
with fewer than 25 employees. The Commission assessed the effects of 
the certification and screenshot requirement on licensees, and it found 
that the modifications in the Second R&O impose a minimal, justifiable 
burden on small entities.
    74. Congressional Review Act. The Commission has determined, and 
Administrator of the Office of

[[Page 57787]]

Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, concurs, that this rule is 
``non-major'' under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The 
Commission will send a copy of the Second R&O to Congress and the 
Government Accountability Office pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

V. Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    75. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 
603, as amended (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
(IRFA) was incorporated in the Second NPRM, released in October 2022. 
The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the 
Second NPRM, including comment on the IRFA. The Commission received no 
comments addressing the IRFA. This present Final Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA. See 5 U.S.C. 604.

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Report and Order

    76. On April 22, 2021, the Commission released the First R&O 
adopting a requirement that radio and television broadcast station 
licensees transmit clear disclosures for programming that is provided 
by a foreign governmental entity. The First R&O also established 
procedures that licensees must follow to determine whether such a 
disclosure is required. The Commission promulgated these foreign 
sponsorship identification rules in response to reports of undisclosed 
foreign government programming being transmitted by U.S. broadcast 
stations. The Commission's rules established a definition of ``foreign 
governmental entity'' based on existing definitions, statutes, and 
regulations. The Commission's requirements apply to leased programming 
because the record in the underlying proceeding identified leased 
airtime as the primary means by which foreign governmental entities are 
accessing U.S. airwaves to persuade the American public without 
adequately disclosing the true sponsor. The Commission promulgated the 
foreign sponsorship identification rules based on a fundamental and 
long-standing tenet of broadcast regulation; namely, that the public 
has a right to know the identity of those soliciting their support.
    77. On July 19, 2021, the ABC Television Affiliates Association, 
CBS Television Network Affiliates Association, FBC Television 
Affiliates Association, and NBC Television Affiliates (collectively, 
the ``Affiliates'') filed a Petition for Clarification. The Affiliates 
assert that the exemption in the First R&O of ``traditional, short-form 
advertising'' from the foreign sponsorship identification rules creates 
confusion because the term has no established meaning in the broadcast 
industry.
    78. On August 13, 2021, the National Association of Broadcasters 
(NAB) and two public interest groups (collectively, the 
``Petitioners'') filed a Petition for Review of the Commission's First 
R&O with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 
challenging the Commission's authority to impose one of the reasonable 
diligence requirements contained in the First R&O. Specifically, the 
First R&O required a licensee to confirm whether its lessee is a 
``foreign governmental entity,'' at the time of entering into a lease 
agreement and at renewal, by consulting the Department of Justice's 
Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) website and the Commission's 
semi-annual U.S.-based foreign media outlets reports.
    79. On July 12, 2022, the D.C. Circuit vacated this verification 
requirement, holding that it exceeded the Commission's authority under 
section 317(c) of the Communications Act. The court left in place the 
remaining four requirements needed to satisfy the statutory reasonable 
diligence standard. Pursuant to these requirements, a broadcast 
licensee must at the time of entering into a new lease agreement, or at 
renewal:

    (1) Inform the lessee of the foreign sponsorship disclosure 
requirement.
    (2) Ask the lessee whether it falls into any of the categories 
that would qualify it as a ``foreign governmental entity.''
    (3) Ask the lessee whether it knows if any individual/entity 
further back in the chain of producing/distributing the programming 
to be aired qualifies as a foreign governmental entity and has 
provided some type of inducement to air the programming.
    (4) Memorialize the above-listed inquiries and retain such 
memorialization in its records for the remainder of the license term 
or for one year, whichever is longer.

    80. On October 6, 2022, the Commission released its Second NPRM, 
which contained proposals to address the gap left in the foreign 
sponsorship identification rules by the D.C. Circuit's vacatur of the 
independent verification requirement. In addition, the Second NPRM gave 
interested parties the opportunity to comment on the pending Petition 
for Clarification ``regarding the applicability of the foreign 
sponsorship identification rules to advertisements sold by local 
broadcast stations'' and the application of the Second NPRM's proposals 
to section 325(c) permit holders.
    81. The Second R&O replaces the vacated verification requirement 
with an approach that allows a licensee to choose between one of two 
options to comply with its statutory ``reasonable diligence'' 
requirement. Although licensees must choose one of these approaches, 
they need not choose the same approach for each lease or renewal 
agreement, even when the same lessee is involved. Compliance with one 
of these two approaches must be at the time of entering into any new 
lease agreement or renewing an existing lease agreement, unless the 
once-a-year exception described below applies. Under the first option, 
both the licensee and the lessee must complete a written certification 
either using the standardized certification language contained in 
Appendices C and D of the Second R&O, and set forth below, or using 
their own language, as long as the certifications written in their own 
language contain the information and inquiry requirements set out in 
Sec.  73.1212(j)(3)(i) through (iii) of the Commission's rules, 
pursuant to the First R&O.
    82. Under the second option, instead of asking the lessee to 
provide a responsive certification regarding its status, a licensee 
exercising this option would ask, consistent with the Commission's 
current foreign sponsorship identification rules, whether the lessee is 
a registered FARA agent, or is listed in the Commission's U.S.-based 
foreign media outlet report. If the lessee responds ``no,'' the 
licensee would then ask the lessee to provide screenshots showing the 
results of lessee's searches of both of these websites. See https://www.fcc.gov/united-states-based-foreign-media-outlets, which identifies 
the outlets that filed with the Commission in response to the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (NDAA). The NDAA 
requires U.S.-based foreign media outlets to submit reports every six 
months to the Commission regarding the outlets' relations to their 
foreign principals. Licensees choosing this option must still comply 
with all other aspects of the current rule, as they have been required 
to do since the compliance date of the First R&O. Specifically, 
consistent with the existing foreign sponsorship identification rules, 
the licensee must inform the lessee about the foreign sponsorship 
disclosure requirement; inquire whether the lessee is either a 
``government of a foreign country'' or a ``foreign political party[;]'' 
and inquire about the lessee's knowledge of anyone further back in the 
chain of producing/distributing the

[[Page 57788]]

programming who qualifies as a ``foreign governmental entity'' and may 
have provided an inducement to air the programming such as to trigger 
the need for a foreign sponsorship disclosure. See 47 CFR 
73.1212(j)(3)(i) through (iii). Finally, also consistent with the 
existing foreign sponsorship identification rules, the licensee must 
memorialize those inquiries in some manner. See 47 CFR 
73.1212(j)(3)(v).
    83. Although proposed in the Second NPRM, in response to commenter 
concerns, the Second R&O determines that a licensee need not notify the 
Commission's Media Bureau when a lessee fails to respond to the 
licensee's queries. If, however, it is determined at a later date that 
the programming should have included a foreign sponsorship disclosure, 
the Commission may conduct a fact-specific inquiry to determine whether 
the licensee met its obligation under section 317(c) to ``exercise 
reasonable diligence to obtain'' the necessary information, such as by 
not making further inquiry of the lessee. Further, although the Second 
NPRM proposed requiring licensees to retain the certifications and 
screenshots in the licensees' own online public inspection file (OPIF), 
the Second R&O gives licensees more flexibility in deciding where to 
retain these records. Pursuant to the Second R&O, licensees may either 
file these records in their OPIF or retain these records in their 
internal files, as long as the documents are made available to the 
Commission promptly upon request. Licensees must retain all of their 
certifications and screenshots, along with a memorialization of 
inquiries accompanying the screenshots for the length of the license 
term or one year, whichever is longer.
    84. In response to commenter concerns about frequently having to 
repeat the certification/screenshot process for short term leases, the 
Second R&O concludes that, where a licensee and the same lessee enter 
into recurring leases for the same programming over a one year period, 
the licensee need only exercise its reasonable diligence obligations, 
including the certification or screenshot process, once per year. This 
modification of the proposals contained in the Second NPRM addresses 
concerns raised in the record about the burdens associated with the 
production of multiple certifications/screenshots over a limited period 
of time when the lease concerns both the same lessee and same 
programming. The Second R&O provides an example of what is meant by 
``same lessee'' and ``same programming'' in this context. An example of 
what is meant by ``same lessee'' and ``same programming'' in this 
context would be House of Worship X leasing time for the live broadcast 
of its weekly religious service, every Sunday from 11 a.m. till 12 p.m. 
While the specific broadcasts would differ week to week, the lessee 
would continue to be House of Worship X and the program would be its 
live religious service broadcast. By contrast, if House of Worship X 
decides to use its regular time slot to provide something other than 
its weekly religious service--e.g., a panel discussion with various 
civic leaders--that would be considered different programming that 
would not fall within the one year exemption, and, thus, would require 
licensee and lessee to engage in the reasonable diligence requirements 
laid out in the Commission's rules.
    85. The Second R&O reconfirms the finding from the First R&O that 
the foreign sponsorship identification rules should not apply to 
noncommercial and educational stations (NCEs). The Second R&O also 
clarifies that the foreign sponsorship identification requirements will 
not apply to advertising for commercial products or services to the 
extent such advertising falls within the exemption established in Sec.  
73.1212(f) of the Commission's rules. The Second R&O also clarifies 
that the foreign sponsorship identification rules will not apply to 
political candidate advertisements. The Second R&O, however, determines 
that the foreign sponsorship identification rules will apply to issue 
advertisements and paid PSAs. The Second R&O declines to adopt 
commenters' request to create exemptions from the foreign sponsorship 
identification rules for religious programming and locally produced 
and/or locally distributed programming. The Second R&O finds that 
creating an exemption for religious programming would not be content-
neutral. Additionally, the Second R&O determines that the mere fact 
that programming is locally produced and/or locally distributed does 
not signify that the programming lacks material provided by a foreign 
governmental entity, such that there should be a blanket carveout for 
locally produced and/or distributed programming from the foreign 
sponsorship identification rules.
    86. The requirements adopted in both the First R&O and Second R&O 
will also apply to section 325(c) permit holders. However, because 
section 325(c) permit holders do not have OPIFs, they will file their 
foreign sponsorship disclosures in the publicly available International 
Communications Filing System (ICFS).

B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response 
to the IRFA

    87. There were no comments filed that specifically addressed the 
proposed rules and policies presented in the IRFA.

C. Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration

    88. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which amended 
the RFA, the Commission is required to respond to comments filed by the 
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA), 
and to provide a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed 
rules as a result of those comments. 5 U.S.C. 604(a)(3). The Chief 
Counsel did not file any comments in response to the proposed rules in 
this proceeding.

D. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which 
the Rules Will Apply

    89. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where 
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be 
affected by the rules adopted herein. The RFA generally defines the 
term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small 
business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental 
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same 
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business 
Act (SBA). A ``small business concern'' is one which: (1) is 
independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of 
operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the 
SBA. Below, the Commission provides a description of such small 
entities, as well as an estimate of the number of such small entities, 
where feasible.
    90. Television Broadcasting. This industry is comprised of 
``establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting images together with 
sound.'' See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, ``515120 
Television Broadcasting,'' https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=515120&year=2017&details=515120. These establishments operate 
television broadcast studios and facilities for the programming and 
transmission of programs to the public. These establishments also 
produce or transmit visual programming to affiliated broadcast 
television stations, which in turn broadcast the programs to the public 
on a predetermined schedule. Programming may originate in their own 
studio, from an affiliated network, or

[[Page 57789]]

from external sources. The SBA small business size standard for this 
industry classifies businesses having $41.5 million or less in annual 
receipts as small. 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS Code 515120 (as of 10/1/22 
NAICS Code 516120). 2017 U.S. Census Bureau data indicate that 744 
firms in this industry operated for the entire year. Of that number, 
657 firms had revenue of less than $25,000,000. Based on this data the 
Commission estimates that the majority of television broadcasters are 
small entities under the SBA small business size standard.
    91. As of September 30, 2023, there were 1,377 licensed commercial 
television stations. Broadcast Station Totals as of September 30, 2023, 
Public Notice, DA 23-921 (rel. Oct. 3, 2023) (October 2023 Broadcast 
Station Totals PN), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-23-921A1.pdf. Of this total, 1,258 stations (or 91.4%) had revenues of 
$41.5 million or less in 2022, according to Commission staff review of 
the BIA Kelsey Inc. Media Access Pro Television Database (BIA) on 
October 4, 2023, and therefore these licensees qualify as small 
entities under the SBA definition. In addition, the Commission 
estimates as of September 30, 2023, there were 383 licensed NCE 
television stations, 380 Class A TV stations, 1,889 LPTV stations and 
3,127 TV translator stations. The Commission, however, does not compile 
and otherwise does not have access to financial information for these 
television broadcast stations that would permit it to determine how 
many of these stations qualify as small entities under the SBA small 
business size standard. Nevertheless, given the SBA's large annual 
receipts threshold for this industry and the nature of these television 
station licensees, the Commission presumes that all of these entities 
qualify as small entities under the above SBA small business size 
standard.
    92. Radio Broadcasting. This industry is comprised of 
``establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting aural programs by 
radio to the public.'' See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, 
``515112 Radio Stations,'' https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=515112&year=2017&details=515112. Programming may originate in 
their own studio, from an affiliated network, or from external sources. 
The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies firms 
having $41.5 million or less in annual receipts as small. U.S. Census 
Bureau data for 2017 show that 2,963 firms operated in this industry 
during that year. Of this number, 1,879 firms operated with revenue of 
less than $25 million per year. Based on this data and the SBA's small 
business size standard, the Commission estimates a majority of such 
entities are small entities.
    93. The Commission estimates that as of September 30, 2023, there 
were 4,452 licensed commercial AM radio stations and 6,670 licensed 
commercial FM radio stations, for a combined total of 11,122 commercial 
radio stations. Of this total, 11,120 stations (or 99.98%) had revenues 
of $41.5 million or less in 2022, according to Commission staff review 
of the BIA Kelsey Inc. Media Access Pro Database (BIA) on October 4, 
2023, and therefore these licensees qualify as small entities under the 
SBA definition. In addition, the Commission estimates that as of 
September 30, 2023, there were 4,263 licensed NCE FM radio stations, 
1,978 low power FM (LPFM) stations, and 8,928 FM translators and 
boosters. The Commission however does not compile, and otherwise does 
not have access to financial information for these radio stations that 
would permit it to determine how many of these stations qualify as 
small entities under the SBA small business size standard. 
Nevertheless, given the SBA's large annual receipts threshold for this 
industry and the nature of radio station licensees, the Commission 
presumes that all of these entities qualify as small entities under the 
above SBA small business size standard.
    94. The Commission notes, however, that in assessing whether a 
business concern qualifies as ``small'' under the above definition, 
business (control) affiliations must be included. ``[Business concerns] 
are affiliates of each other when one concern controls or has the power 
to control the other or a third party or parties controls or has the 
power to control both.'' 13 CFR 21.103(a)(1). Its estimate, therefore, 
likely overstates the number of small entities that might be affected 
by the Commission's action, because the revenue figure on which it is 
based does not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies. 
In addition, another element of the definition of ``small business'' 
requires that an entity not be dominant in its field of operation. The 
Commission is unable at this time to define or quantify the criteria 
that would establish whether a specific radio or television broadcast 
station is dominant in its field of operation. Accordingly, the 
estimate of small businesses to which the rules may apply does not 
exclude any radio or television station from the definition of a small 
business on this basis and is therefore possibly over-inclusive. An 
additional element of the definition of ``small business'' is that the 
entity must be independently owned and operated. Because it is 
difficult to assess these criteria in the context of media entities, 
the estimate of small businesses to which the rules may apply does not 
exclude any radio or television station from the definition of a small 
business on this basis and similarly may be over-inclusive.

E. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities

    95. The Second R&O gives licensees the choice between one of two 
options to comply with their statutory ``reasonable diligence'' 
requirement. Although licensees must choose one of these approaches, 
they need not choose the same approach for each lease or renewal 
agreement, even when the same lessee is involved. Compliance with one 
of these two approaches must be at the time of entering into any new 
lease agreement or renewing an existing lease agreement, unless the 
once-a-year exception described below applies. Under the first option, 
both the licensee and the lessee must complete a written certification 
either using the standardized certification language contained in 
Appendices C and D of the Second R&O, and set forth below, or using 
their own language, as long as the certifications written in their own 
language contain the information and inquiry requirements set out in 
Sec.  73.1212(j)(3)(i) through (iii) of the Commission's rules, 
pursuant to the First R&O. Specifically, a licensee's certification 
should:

    (1) inform the lessee of the foreign sponsorship disclosure 
requirement;
    (2) ask the lessee whether it falls into any of the categories 
that would qualify it as a ``foreign governmental entity;''
    (3) ask the lessee whether it knows if any individual/entity 
further back in the chain of producing and/or distributing the 
programming to be aired qualifies as a foreign governmental entity 
and has provided some type of inducement to air the programming;
    (4) seek a written certification in response from the lessee; 
and
    (5) obtain the necessary information for a disclosure if one is 
required.

    96. A lessee's certification should convey the information needed 
to determine whether a disclosure is required and the information 
needed for a broadcast disclosure if one is required. See 47 CFR 
73.1212(j)(1).
    97. Regardless of whether the Commission's templates or a 
licensee's and lessee's own certifications are used, both the 
licensee's and lessee's certifications must be dated and signed by an 
employee or other representative

[[Page 57790]]

of the entity who can attest to the fact that these actions were taken.
    98. Under the second option, instead of asking the lessee to 
provide a responsive certification regarding its status, a licensee 
exercising this option would ask, consistent with the Commission's 
current foreign sponsorship identification rules, whether the lessee is 
a registered FARA agent or is listed in the Commission's U.S.-based 
foreign media outlet report. If the lessee responds ``no,'' the 
licensee would then ask the lessee to provide screenshots showing the 
results of lessee's searches for its own name on both of these 
websites. The FARA website provides for an ``Active Registrants'' 
search link, and the Second R&O recommends that lessees use this link 
because the Commission's rules only cover those FARA agents who are 
currently registered on the Department of Justice FARA site. In 
response to concerns raised in the record about having to input ``exact 
names'' into the search feature, the Second R&O emphasizes that lessees 
are looking for their own names. A lessee is not doing a FARA database 
search to learn whether it is registered such as to necessitate 
experimenting with different iterations of its name. A lessee, or 
someone within lessee's organization, would know whether it is a FARA 
registrant, or U.S.-based foreign media outlet. As such, the lessee 
will only be providing screenshots if, in response to licensee's 
queries, the lessee states that it is neither a FARA agent nor a U.S.-
based foreign media outlet.
    99. With regard to searches of the Commission's U.S.-based foreign 
media outlet site, the Commission's website lists the names of all the 
entities that have reported as U.S.-based foreign media outlets, and 
all that is required is a screenshot of this list to show whether the 
lessee's name appears on the list at the time of the licensee's 
required inquiries. Licensees choosing this option must still comply 
with all other aspects of the current rule, as they have been required 
to do since the compliance date of the First R&O. Specifically, 
consistent with the existing foreign sponsorship identification rules, 
the licensee must inform the lessee about the foreign sponsorship 
disclosure requirement; inquire whether the lessee is either a 
``government of a foreign country'' or a ``foreign political party[;]'' 
and inquire about the lessee's knowledge of anyone further back in the 
chain of producing/distributing the programming who qualifies as a 
``foreign governmental entity'' and may have provided an inducement to 
air the programming such as to trigger the need for a foreign 
sponsorship disclosure. Moreover, consistent with the certification 
option, a licensee should also ask the lessee to update it if there has 
been a change in the lessee's status or the status of anyone further 
back in the chain of producing/distributing the programming so as to 
trigger the need for a foreign sponsorship disclosure. Finally, also 
consistent with the existing foreign sponsorship identification rules, 
the licensee must memorialize those inquiries in some manner.
    100. Although proposed in the Second NPRM, in response to commenter 
concerns, the Second R&O determines that a licensee need not notify the 
Commission's Media Bureau when a lessee fails to respond to the 
licensee's queries. If, however, it is determined at a later date that 
the programming should have included a foreign sponsorship disclosure, 
the Commission may conduct a fact-specific inquiry to determine whether 
the licensee met its obligation under section 317(c) of the 
Communications Act to ``exercise reasonable diligence to obtain'' the 
necessary information, such as by not making further inquiry of the 
lessee. Further, although the Second NPRM proposed requiring licensees 
to retain the certifications and screenshots in the licensees' own 
OPIF, the Second R&O gives licensees more flexibility in deciding where 
to retain these records. Pursuant to the Second R&O, licensees may 
either file these records in their OPIF or retain these records in 
their internal files, as long as the documents are made available to 
the Commission promptly upon request. Licensees must retain all of 
their certifications and screenshots, along with memorialization of 
inquiries accompanying the screenshots for the length of the license 
term or one year, whichever is longer.
    101. In response to commenter concerns about frequently having to 
repeat the certification/screenshot process for short term leases, the 
Second R&O concludes that, where a licensee and the same lessee enter 
into recurring leases for the same programming over a one year period, 
the licensee need only exercise its reasonable diligence obligations, 
including the certification or screenshot process, once per year. This 
modification of the proposals contained in the Second NPRM addresses 
concerns raised in the record about the burdens associated with the 
production of multiple certifications/screenshots over a limited period 
of time when the lease concerns both the same lessee and lease.
    102. The Second R&O reconfirms the finding from the First R&O that 
the foreign sponsorship identification rules should not apply to NCEs. 
The Second R&O also clarifies that the foreign sponsorship 
identification requirements will not apply to advertising for 
commercial products or services to the extent such advertising falls 
within the exemption established in Sec.  73.1212(f) of the 
Commission's rules. The Second R&O declines to adopt commenters' 
request to create exemptions from the foreign sponsorship 
identification rules for religious programming and locally produced 
and/or locally distributed programming. The Second R&O finds that 
creating an exemption for religious programming would not be content-
neutral. Additionally, the Second R&O determines that the mere fact 
that programming is locally produced and/or locally distributed does 
not signify that the programming lacks material provided by a foreign 
governmental entity, such that there should be a blanket carveout for 
locally produced and/or distributed programming from the foreign 
sponsorship identification rules.
    103. The requirements adopted in both the First R&O and Second R&O 
will also apply to section 325(c) permit holders. However, because 
section 325(c) permit holders do not have OPIFs, they will file their 
foreign sponsorship disclosures in the publicly available International 
Communications Filing System (ICFS).
    104. Any lease agreements that are entered into, or that are 
renewed, on or after the date that the Media Bureau publishes in the 
Federal Register an announcement that the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) has completed any review required under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of the rule modifications contained in the Second R&O 
must comply with the requirements laid out in the Second R&O. Based on 
commenter concerns about having to redo work associated with existing 
leases that comply with the current foreign sponsorship identification 
rules, the Commission determines that the rule modifications contained 
in the Second R&O will apply only to new leases and renewals of 
existing leases entered into on or after the required compliance date 
for those rule modifications. The Second R&O directs the Commission's 
Media Bureau to announce the compliance date for the new rules via 
public notice and to revise Sec.  73.1212 of the rules accordingly.

F. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

    105. The RFA requires an agency to provide, ``a description of the 
steps the agency has taken to minimize the

[[Page 57791]]

significant economic impact on small entities . . . including a 
statement of the factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the 
alternative adopted in the final rule and why each one of the other 
significant alternatives to the rule considered by the agency which 
affect the impact on small entities was rejected[.]'' 5 U.S.C. 
604(a)(6).
    106. The Second R&O carefully considers the concerns raised by 
commenters, a number of which may represent, or themselves be, small 
entities. In response to commenter concerns about burdens, the Second 
R&O gives licensees greater flexibility than initially proposed in the 
Second NPRM to determine how best to comply with the inquiry 
memorialization requirement. In response to commenter concerns that the 
standardized certification language proposed in the Second NPRM was too 
lengthy, complex, and full of legalese, the Second R&O greatly reduces 
the length and complexity of the standardized language and now employs 
a simple check-box approach. The Second R&O allows licensees to use 
their own certification language in response to comments expressing 
concerns about licensees that already have developed their own 
certifications based on the existing foreign sponsorship identification 
rules and for whom revising these certifications would be costly. The 
inquiries that must be contained in the self-generated certifications 
align with the requirements contained in the First R&O and, thus, 
previous certifications that are consistent with that order may not 
need to be modified. Finally, the Second R&O also offers a licensee the 
option to not use certifications at all, but to instead seek from its 
lessee screenshots of the lessee's search of two Federal websites to 
demonstrate whether the lessee's name appears on the sites, as well as 
requiring the licensee to memorialize some additional queries, pursuant 
to the First R&O, made to a lessee.
    107. The Second NPRM proposed that licensees should retain all 
certifications in their OPIFs. However, in response to commenter 
concerns about this requirement, the Second R&O merely requires 
licensees to retain copies of certifications and screenshots in their 
personal files, with the option of uploading the documentation into 
their OPIF if they choose. The certification and screenshot 
requirements adopted in the Second R&O apply only to new leases and 
renewals of existing leases entered into on or after the required 
compliance date for the rule modifications. In response to commenter 
concerns about having to redo work associated with existing leases that 
comply with the current foreign sponsorship identification rules, the 
Second R&O determines that the rule modifications contained in the 
Second R&O will apply only to new leases and renewals of existing 
leases entered into on or after the required compliance date for those 
rule modifications. In response to some commenters' concerns regarding 
the unique economic challenges of applying the rules to short-term 
recurring leases, the Second R&O concludes that, where a licensee and 
the same lessee enter into recurring leases for the same programming 
over a one year period, the licensee need only exercise its reasonable 
diligence obligations, including the certification or screenshot 
process, once per year. In light of concerns raised in the record 
regarding the proposal that licensees report to the Commission 
instances in which lessees fail to respond to licensee queries, the 
Second R&O determines that the licensee need not notify the Media 
Bureau about a licensee's failure to respond and may still choose air 
the programming.

G. Report to Congress

    108. The Commission will send a copy of the Second R&O, including 
this FRFA, in a report to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review 
Act. 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). In addition, the Commission will send a 
copy of the Second R&O, including the FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

VI. Ordering Clauses

    109. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to the authority 
contained in sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(j), 303(r), 307, 317, and 325(c) of 
the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 154(j), 303(r), 
307, 317, and 325(c) the Second R&O is adopted.
    110. It is further ordered that the Petition for Clarification 
filed by ABC Television Affiliates Association, CBS Television Network 
Affiliates Association, FBC Television Affiliates Association, and NBC 
Television Affiliates is dismissed as moot.
    111. It is further ordered that the Second R&O shall be effective 
August 15, 2024, except that the revisions to Sec.  73.1212(j)(3) of 
the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 73.1212(j)(3), which may contain new or 
modified information collection requirements, will not be required 
until the Office of Management and Budget completes review of any 
information collection requirements that the Media Bureau determines is 
required under the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Commission further 
directs the Media Bureau to announce the effective date for the 
revisions to Sec.  73.1212(j)(3) by subsequent Public Notice.
    112. It is further ordered that the Commission's Office of the 
Secretary, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of the 
Second R&O, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the 
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
    113. It is further ordered that Office of the Managing Director, 
Performance Program Management, shall send a copy of the Second R&O in 
a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability 
Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

VII. Approved Templates

Approved Template for Licensee Certification

Name of Licensee:------------------------------------------------------

Name of Lessee:--------------------------------------------------------

Name of Program:-------------------------------------------------------

Nature of Lease: New:_____

Renewal:_______

___ Licensee informed Lessee that FCC regulations require that a 
disclosure accompany programming that is sponsored, paid for, or 
furnished by a foreign governmental entity.

___ Licensee asked Lessee whether Lessee is a foreign governmental 
entity. A foreign governmental entity can be a foreign government, a 
foreign political party, an agent of a foreign principal, or a U.S.-
based foreign media outlet.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 47 CFR 73.1212(j). If more information is needed 
regarding the definition of a foreign governmental entity, see the 
FCC's rules at 47 CFR 73.1212(j)(2)(i) through (iv), which provide 
that:
    (i) The term ``government of a foreign country'' has the meaning 
given such term in the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 
(FARA), 22 U.S.C. 611(e);
    (ii) The term ``foreign political party'' has the meaning given 
such term in the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 (FARA), 22 
U.S.C. 611(f);
    (iii) The term ``agent of a foreign principal'' has the meaning 
given such term in the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 (22 
U.S.C. 611(c)), and who is registered as such with the Department of 
Justice, and whose ``foreign principal'' is a ``government of a 
foreign country,'' a ``foreign political party,'' or directly or 
indirectly operated, supervised, directed, owned, controlled, 
financed, or subsidized by a ``government of a foreign country'' or 
a ``foreign political party'' as defined in subsection 
73.1212(j)(2)(i) and (ii), and that is acting in its capacity as an 
agent of such ``foreign principal;'' and
    (iv) The term ``United States-based foreign media outlet'' has 
the meaning given such term in section 722(a) of the Communications 
Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 624(a)).


[[Page 57792]]


---------------------------------------------------------------------------

___Licensee asked Lessee whether it knows if any individual/entity in 
the chain of producing or distributing the programming is a foreign 
governmental entity and has provided some type of inducement to air the 
programming.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ If the programming is political in nature, or involves the 
discussion of a controversial issue, the FCC disclosure requirements 
apply even if no compensation or payment, other than the programming 
itself, was provided as an inducement to air the program.

___Licensee sought from Lessee a written response certifying Lessee's 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
answers. Lessee did___ did not___ provide a written certification.

___If applicable, Licensee obtained from Lessee the information needed 
to add the following disclosure to Lessee's programming: ``The 
[following/preceding] programming was [sponsored, paid for, or 
furnished], either in whole or in part, by [name of foreign 
governmental entity] on behalf of [name of foreign country].''

On behalf of Licensee, I certify that the above statements are 
accurate.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Name and Position

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Signature

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date

Approved Template for Lessee Certification

Name of Licensee:------------------------------------------------------

Name of Lessee:--------------------------------------------------------

Name of Program:-------------------------------------------------------

Nature of Lease: New_____ Renewal: ________

1. Lessee is a foreign governmental entity. A foreign governmental 
entity can be a foreign government, a foreign political party, an agent 
of a foreign principal, or a U.S.-based foreign media outlet \3\ 
Yes:___ No: ___
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 47 CFR 73.1212(j). If more information is needed 
regarding the definition of a foreign governmental entity, see the 
FCC's rules at 47 CFR 73.1212(j)(2)(i) through (iv), which provide 
that:
    (i) The term ``government of a foreign country'' has the meaning 
given such term in the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 
(FARA), 22 U.S.C. 611(e);
    (ii) The term ``foreign political party'' has the meaning given 
such term in the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 (FARA), 22 
U.S.C. 611(f);
    (iii) The term ``agent of a foreign principal'' has the meaning 
given such term in the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 (22 
U.S.C. 611(c)), and who is registered as such with the Department of 
Justice, and whose ``foreign principal'' is a ``government of a 
foreign country,'' a ``foreign political party,'' or directly or 
indirectly operated, supervised, directed, owned, controlled, 
financed, or subsidized by a ``government of a foreign country'' or 
a ``foreign political party'' as defined in subsection 
73.1212(j)(2)(i) and (ii), and that is acting in its capacity as an 
agent of such ``foreign principal;'' and
    (iv) The term ``United States-based foreign media outlet'' has 
the meaning given such term in Section 722(a) of the Communications 
Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 624(a)).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
__If Yes, Lessee is an entity of the country of_____.

2. Lessee knows of an individual/entity in the chain of producing or 
distributing the programming that is a foreign governmental entity and 
has provided some type of inducement to air the programming.\4\ Yes: 
___ No:___
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ If the programming is political in nature, or involves the 
discussion of a controversial issue, the FCC disclosure requirements 
apply even if no compensation or payment, other than the programming 
itself, was provided as an inducement to air the program.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
__If Yes, the name of the individual/entity is_____.

__If Yes, the name of the country is_____.

3. If applicable, Lessee has provided Licensee with the information 
needed to append the following disclosure to lessee's programming, 
consistent with the FCC's rules at 47 CFR 73.1212(j)(1)(i):

``The [following/preceding] programming was [sponsored, paid for, or 
furnished], either in whole or in part, by [name of foreign 
governmental entity] on behalf of [name of foreign country].''

On behalf of Lessee, I certify that the above statements are accurate.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Name and Position

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Signature

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Television.

Federal Communications Commission.
Katura Jackson,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.

Final Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Commission amends 47 
CFR part 73 as follows:

PART 73--RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES

0
1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  47 U.S.C. 154, 155, 301, 303, 307, 309, 310, 334, 
336, 339.


0
2. Effective August 15, 2024, amend Sec.  73.1212 by adding paragraph 
(j)(8) and revising paragraph (k) to read as follows:


Sec.  73.1212  Sponsorship identification; list retention; related 
requirements.

* * * * *
    (j) * * *
    (8) The requirements contained in this paragraph (j) shall not 
apply to ``uses'' of broadcast stations by legally qualified candidates 
pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 315.
    (k) Where any material delivered to foreign broadcast stations 
under an authorization pursuant to section 325(c) of the Communications 
Act (47 U.S.C. 325(c)) has been sponsored by a foreign governmental 
entity; paid for by a foreign governmental entity; furnished for free 
by a foreign governmental entity to the section 325(c) permit holder as 
an inducement to air the material on the foreign station; or provided 
by the section 325(c) permit holder to the foreign station where the 
section 325(c) permit holder is a foreign governmental entity, the 
material must include, at the time of broadcast, the following 
disclosure, in conformance with the terms of paragraphs (j)(4) through 
(6) of this section: ``The [following/preceding] programming was 
[sponsored, paid for, or furnished], either in whole or in part, by 
[name of foreign governmental entity] on behalf of [name of foreign 
country].'' A section 325(c) permit holder shall ensure that the 
foreign station will broadcast the disclosures along with the material 
and shall place copies of the disclosures required along with the name 
of the program to which the disclosures were appended in the 
International Communications Electronic Filing System (ICFS) under the 
relevant ICFS section 325(c) permit file. The filing must state the 
date and time the program aired. In the case of repeat airings of the 
program, those additional dates and times should also be included. 
Where an aural announcement was made, its contents must be reduced to 
writing and placed in the ICFS in the same manner. The section 325(c) 
permit holder shall exercise reasonable diligence to ascertain whether 
the foreign sponsorship disclosure requirements of paragraphs (j)(1) 
and (4) through (6) of this section apply to any material delivered to 
a foreign broadcast station, including obtaining from its employees, 
and from other persons with whom it deals directly in connection with 
any matter for broadcast, and in the same manner prescribed for 
broadcast stations in paragraph (j)(3) of this section, information to 
enable the permit holder

[[Page 57793]]

to include the announcement required by this section; memorializing its 
conduct of such reasonable diligence; and retaining such documentation 
in its records for either the remainder of the then-current permit term 
or one year, whichever is longer, so as to respond to any future 
Commission inquiry. The term foreign governmental entity shall have the 
meaning set forth in paragraph (j)(2) of this section.

0
3. Delayed indefinitely, further amend Sec.  73.1212 by revising 
paragraphs (j)(3) introductory text and (j)(3)(iv) and (v) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  73.1212  Sponsorship identification; list retention; related 
requirements.

* * * * *
    (j) * * *
    (3) The licensee of each broadcast station shall exercise 
reasonable diligence to ascertain whether the foreign sponsorship 
disclosure requirements in paragraph (j)(1) of this section apply at 
the time of the lease agreement and at any renewal thereof, or apply 
within a one-year period if the lessee and the programming remain 
unchanged, including:
* * * * *
    (iv) Memorializing that the licensee has complied with the 
requirements in paragraphs (j)(3)(i) through (iii) of this section and 
has sought to obtain a response from the lessee with the information 
needed to determine if a disclosure is necessary, and if one is 
necessary, the information needed to make the disclosure, either:
    (A) By executing a written certification attesting to the 
licensee's compliance and by seeking a written certification from the 
lessee; or
    (B) By complying with the information requirement contained in 
paragraph (j)(3)(i) of this section and by asking the lessee to provide 
screenshots of its searches of the Department of Justice's FARA website 
and the Commission's semi-annual U.S.-based foreign media outlets 
reports, in the event that lessee has stated it is neither a FARA agent 
nor a U.S.-based foreign media outlet, and asking lessee to provide 
other information needed to make such a determination (i.e., asking 
lessee whether it falls into the categories listed in paragraphs 
(j)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section that are not covered by the request 
for screenshots), and by making a record of the licensee's compliance 
efforts; and
    (v) Retaining the documentation in the licensee's records for the 
remainder of the then-current license term or one year, whichever is 
longer, so as to respond to any future Commission inquiry.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2024-15259 Filed 7-15-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P